Posted on: Saturday, September 7, 2002

ANALYSIS
Pledge issue stirs national debate

By Richard N. Ostling
Associated Press

Members of the House of Representatives, organized by Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., left, said the "Pledge of Allegiance" at the Capitol last June, in protest of a court ruling that banned recitations of it in public schools because of the phrase "one nation under God." Associated Press

"One nation under God."

That phrase isn't part of the Constitution, and may not be constitutional in the Pledge of Allegiance, but many Americans have made it clear those four words embody their feelings toward the nation — no matter what the courts say.

In this post-Sept. 11 year, when people from coast to coast have prayed together at innumerable memorial events and have sung "God Bless America" in classrooms and baseball stadiums, this summer's federal court ruling on the pledge could hardly have caused more outrage.

It was the most dramatic example of a phenomenon that's been going on for years: The courts try to restrict public expressions of non-denominational religion, but on the streets, people don't accept the ruling.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals banned the use of "under God" in public school recitations of the pledge because the U.S. Constitution forbids "an establishment of religion" by government.

That decision has been labeled "absurd," "asinine," "heinous," "mindless," "outrageous," "very dangerous" and "just nuts" by an assortment of Democrats, Republicans and religious commentators. The day of the ruling, June 26, the U.S. Senate passed an instant denunciation, 99-0, and House members gathered in defiance on the Capitol steps to recite the pledge.

Even the Anti-Defamation League, which ardently advocates church-state separation, declared the ruling "goes against the culture and traditions of this country."

Roman Catholic philosopher Michael Novak says that part of the reason for the reaction is that in times of crisis — like the war on terrorism — many Americans tap a "reservoir of national understanding" that includes "public religiosity."

Likewise, Boston College sociologist Alan Wolfe thinks it's natural that "people turn to religious values to express themselves."

Of course, Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the pledge case, doesn't think that recitations of "under God" are tolerant toward atheists, and last week he filed a similar suit to eliminate chaplains for the U.S. Congress.

But Newdow is fighting a losing battle in the court of public opinion.

There are ongoing efforts to impeach the 9th Circuit judges and overturn their handiwork, and 356,000 Americans have signed a petition backing proposals in Congress to amend the Constitution and make the pledge inviolable.

Wolfe considers the pledge phrase a "trivial" compromise with public sentiment.

"I don't believe in God, but it doesn't bother me," he said. "You have to live in society with those who do."

The pledge debate is occurring as the Constitution's "establishment of religion" clause is being rethought.

The day after the 9th Circuit decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of tuition voucher plans that include religious schools. Justice David Souter's dissent protested that this obliterated doctrine dating back to a 1947 decision that held that the "establishment" clause requires separation of church and state. The court interpreted that to mean that federal, state or local governments cannot "pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

That led to bans on graduation prayers, football prayers, moments of silence and Ten Commandments displays in public schools, precedents that undergirded the 9th Circuit's pledge decision.

But popular dissent is unending.

The president of the Southern Baptist Convention and TV preacher Jerry Falwell have called for mass civil disobedience in the form of ongoing classroom pledge recitations. A November federal trial will decide whether a Nebraska school board member should have led the Lord's Prayer at graduation. And hardly a week passes without legal footwork over the country's 4,000 municipal Ten Commandments displays.

The same week as the pledge and voucher rulings, Harvard University Press issued a remarkable book, "Separation of Church and State," by Philip Hamburger of the University of Chicago Law School. Hamburger contends that "the constitutional authority for separation is without historical foundation."

In Hamburger's view, the Constitution's framers merely meant to prohibit the use of public money for churches and discrimination against particular faiths. Novak's latest book, "On Two Wings," underscores the devoutly religious intent of the framers.

However, some conservative Christians still prefer not to utter the G-word in the pledge. Among them is Mark Noll of Wheaton (Ill.) College, an evangelical thinker who says "a slogan like 'under God' doesn't help to clarify helpful ways of bringing God into public life."

Douglas Laycock of the University of Texas School of Law thinks the private religious preferences of Americans should be protected. On that basis he defended both June rulings — for vouchers and against "under God."

The Constitution is "about protecting both believers and nonbelievers, and all kinds of both, and enabling us to live together in relative peace," he said.

But Laycock adds that rulings that go against public sentiment such as the pledge ban risk weakening citizens' faith in the courts.